[13:28] <guest12345> hello room, i tried to get help from the ubuntu channel but i can't get in. it says im banned. can someone please help or lift the ban
[13:33] <RAOF> robert_ancell: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/systemd/+bug/1720131 is the logind bug I filed
[13:34] <LocutusOfBorg> guest12345, register your nick
[13:34] <LocutusOfBorg> guests are not allowed in some channels
[13:34] <robert_ancell> RAOF: didn't file upstream?
[13:34] <RAOF> robert_ancell: Not initially, no.
[13:34] <RAOF> I guess I can if you want.
[13:36] <robert_ancell> please :)
[13:41] <RAOF> robert_ancell: Hah! I'm three days late: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6908
[13:41] <robert_ancell> :)
[13:44] <guest12345> it appears to be an ip ban
[13:44] <guest12345> we have a static here at the office
[13:49] <LocutusOfBorg> so go on #freenode and ask there
[14:50] <LocutusOfBorg> jbicha, boinc mostly syncd :/
[14:54] <jbicha> LocutusOfBorg: thank you
[15:03] <doko> stgraber: sru team meeting in the ballroom
[15:11] <cjwatson> juliank: I know it wasn't you who made the change (https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/apt/apt.git/commit/?id=cbaf353ead58aa9eefe51542b6ad91e69b6289ce), but do you know why this new bit of config is different from APT::Get::AllowUnauthenticated?
[15:12] <juliank> cjwatson: no
[15:13] <juliank> cjwatson: But I know that it's older than 3 years, so I'm not sure we can figure out why
[15:13] <cjwatson> hmmm
[15:13] <cjwatson> we just noticed that allow-unauthenticated recently stopped being effective on buildds
[15:14] <cjwatson> e.g. https://launchpadlibrarian.net/339016030/buildlog_ubuntu-artful-amd64.node-babel_6.25.0+dfsg-7_BUILDING.txt.gz despite APT::Get::AllowUnauthenticated "1"
[15:14] <cjwatson> (I'm fixing this particular case in another way, but it seems unexpected)
[15:14] <juliank> cjwatson: Well, it's an unrelated setting, we just flipped the default for AllowInsecureRepositories to 0 recently
[15:15] <cjwatson> mm.  so AllowInsecureRepositories affects update, AllowUnauthenticated affects other acquisition?
[15:15] <juliank> cjwatson: mvo split allow-insecure-repositories and AllowDowngradeToInsecureRepositories off from unauthenticated in Oct 1, 2014
[15:16] <juliank> cjwatson: I think to be complete AllowInsecureRepositories affects downloading unsigned Release files
[15:16] <juliank> and the rest stuff with missing trust root from a release file
[15:16] <cjwatson> hm, right
[15:16] <cjwatson> thanks
[15:17] <cjwatson> infinity1: ^- so maybe chroots should start setting Acquire::AllowInsecureRepositories as well?
[15:17] <juliank> You can also set these options per sources.list entry
[15:18] <cjwatson> Yeah I know
[15:18] <cjwatson> And we're moving towards that (and indeed to dispatching necessary keys so that it mostly stops mattering)
[15:18] <cjwatson> We're just not completely there
[15:18] <cjwatson> In this particular case, https://code.launchpad.net/~cjwatson/launchpad/external-dependencies-trusted/+merge/331490 (plus a bootstrap-package change) should make it not a problem
[15:20] <cjwatson> (or I guess here [allow-insecure=yes] rather than [trusted=yes] - will experiment)
[15:37] <LocutusOfBorg> rbalint, unattended-upgrades new merge?
[15:38] <LocutusOfBorg> and why can't you apply for PPU?
[15:41] <rbalint> LocutusOfBorg: I applied for core dev
[15:41] <jbicha> LocutusOfBorg: he is applying for Core Dev now https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BalintReczey/CoreDeveloperApplication
[15:42] <rbalint> LocutusOfBorg: would be nice to have an other endorsement as two seems not to be not enough :-)
[15:44] <rbalint> LocutusOfBorg: regarding unattended-upgrades I wanted to give it a few days in unstable but i plan filing the merge this week
[15:46] <kyrofa> tkamppeter, https://bugs.launchpad.net/snapd/+bug/1655125
[16:02] <rbasak> bdmurray: http://paste.ubuntu.com/25634196/
[16:20] <nacc> juliank: how should i loop properly on `apt update`/`apt-get update` completing successfully? It returns 0 (it seems) when it fails to download all index files
[16:20] <juliank> nacc: You can't, really
[16:21] <nacc> juliank: sigh :/
[16:21] <nacc> juliank: ok
[16:21] <nacc> cjwatson: how do the buildd's ensure they have a valid apt cache?
[16:21] <nacc> (e.g., start a container, apt update which may or may not update but returns 0 no matter what, ... but we want apt install to work)
[16:22] <cjwatson> nacc: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~canonical-launchpad-branches/launchpad-buildd/trunk/view/head:/lpbuildd/target/apt.py#L59
[16:22] <nacc> cjwatson: thanks!
[16:22] <cjwatson> crude, but good enough
[16:22] <nacc> cjwatson: but wait, do you get a CalledProcessError?
[16:22] <cjwatson> it certainly used to return non-zero when it failed to download all index files
[16:22] <nacc> cjwatson: i thought that only got raised on non-zero?
[16:22] <nacc> cjwatson: ah ok :)
[16:22] <cjwatson> or at least in the relevant categories of failure
[16:23] <nacc> cjwatson: on xenial it does not (in a lxd)
[16:23] <cjwatson> maybe you're hitting something a bit different than buildds generally do
[16:23] <nacc> maybe, yeah
[16:23] <nacc> i can adapt your backoff logic
[16:23] <nacc> (we have other network retry/backoff stuff anyways)
[16:24] <cjwatson> it was a while ago, but when we did that our relatively frequent chroot failures basically went away
[16:24] <nacc> yeah it makes sense
[16:25] <nacc> cjwatson: juliank: thanks!
[16:48] <tsimonq2> So I don't want to make Snaps and the backports policy isn't 100% clear... how would I go about requesting a 0 day Backports release of several LXQt components that saw a new upstream release recently?
[16:49] <tsimonq2> Or rather, can something like that be done?
[16:50] <tsimonq2> (Backports before a new devel release opens)
[16:50] <persia> tsimonq2: I'm not sure what you mean by 0-day.  My experience has always been a) get new upstream version in Debian, b) sync to Ubuntu development repo, c) request backport (and providing testing feedback, etc.)
[16:50] <tsimonq2> persia: Similar to the concept of a 0-day SRU
[16:51] <persia> Ah.  I don't recall that happening, but I'll defer to someone paying closer attention these days.
[16:51] <tsimonq2> Ok
[16:52] <tsimonq2> Because if I test the packages in a PPA now, and they'll be synced when devel opens anyways, but the timing doesn't match up for artful-release, how would that go down?
[16:52] <tsimonq2> And there's features in the packages.
[19:10] <nacc> doko: is there any intention for ubuntu-dev-tools to become pythonn3? the wrapper scripts are *all* python2 :(
[19:11] <nacc> doko: which it turns out when you try to snap them, means you need to build python2 and python3 and build the part twice
[19:11] <nacc> once to get a python3 lib and once to get the python2 scripts
[19:11] <sarnold> nacc: while you're fixing things maybe apport scripts too pls <3
[19:11] <sarnold> hey est31 :)
[19:12] <doko> nacc: feel free to update them ;) afaik most of them depend on launchpadlib ...
[19:12] <nacc> doko: sigh :) ok
[19:12] <est31> hello sarnold
[19:12] <nacc> sarnold: heh
[19:13] <doko> cjwatson: ^^^ is there a python3 replacement for launchpadlib?
[19:13] <nacc> doko: launchpadlib works with python3
[19:13] <nacc> doko: we use it heavily in git-ubuntu :)
[19:14] <doko> ohh, then this changed
[19:14] <doko> this and bzr keeps python2 for me on my laptop
[19:14] <nacc> doko: it'd be a simple tweak to setup.py for the scripts to install on python3, but then they all nneed updates to not use /usr/bin/python
[19:15] <cjwatson> python3-launchpadlib is mostly OK now in artful
[19:15] <cjwatson> it was a bit dodgy in xenial
[19:15] <nacc> yeah, i'm referring to the one on pypi
[19:15] <cjwatson> right, it's up to date there now
[19:15] <nacc> cjwatson: thanks for that :) helped enalbe the git-ubuntu snap
[19:16] <cjwatson> I have a load of ubuntu-archive-tool updates which I need to get round to landing
[19:16] <cjwatson> +s
[20:11] <est31> wow someone on #ubuntu really wondered about TOR browser
[20:11] <nacc> est31: they had an offensive nick and were being helped
[20:11] <nacc> unclear why it escalated from there
[20:11] <est31> I've got about 20 PMs from different nicks
[20:12] <nacc> yep
[20:12] <pfsmorigo> I only got two
[20:12] <nacc> it was basically random, it seems
[20:59] <ppisati_> doko: am i correct saying that we don't have a cross-compile toolchain from (!x86) to x86? e.g. cross-compile from arm64 host to i386 target?
[21:14] <ricotz> doko, any chance to get this patch into arful? https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=874276#25
[21:51] <manjo> meet @6:30 in the lobby for team dinner